Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: groovernut Date: Aug 17, 2010 7:35am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

Firstly, I like Bob, I respect his role in the band, no need to "bash" the man. You like the dead, you like bobby, plain and simple.

However read the last post it would appear that Bob thinks the band peaked in 89-90..... well that was a ONE high point, but Bob need to go back and listen to 73.

Plain and simple, the glory days of the band are behind them, nothing wrong with that, just the facts.

How feels that the band peaked in 98-90 and what show do you use a proof? I'll guess that I can find a better show from 73, but that subjective, I recon.

Thing about the later day dead is that in a song they might have brilliant moments but it's rare that they get the whole song out without a major flaw. IOW it's hard to pull something from the later day with out editing it down and pulling the mistakes...there are less mistake in 73.

I'm going to see "Further" in September and am nervous when I heard Bobby say stuff like the 89-90 comment... maybe they Bobby should listen to JK just like he did to Jerry?





Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: groovernut Date: Aug 17, 2010 7:53am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

As a side thought. Maybe the Bobbie peaked on 89-90. He is the young one and during that time he may have hit his high point, as must as the rest of the band regressed. Jerry was fading, Phil was getting old and his voice was long gone.... sure it was time for Brent and bobby to step it up, however IMO that was not the peak point for the quality of the bands sounds.... nope not by a long shot. I hope that bob knows this....... Bob please listen to some 73 before you do fall tour!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Aug 17, 2010 8:17am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

>Maybe the Bobbie peaked on 89-90. He is the young one and during that time he may have hit his high point,

Despite my determination to no longer participate in "Is Bob a jerk" threads ... this makes a lot of sense - maybe it's his somewhat self-centered viewpoint because maybe it was *his* peak.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Aug 17, 2010 8:27am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

You sound like you've just left the field of battle , Ring . I assume the post below ( I didn't read it , all set with a recap ).
BW is the black sheep of the GD . Lots of the ladies , not too many of the boys , like'em . I always have enjoyed his misfit spirit and unique ' voiceleading' style of rhythm guitar playing . Even when he pisses me off , like starting Sugar Mags as Jerry is approaching the peak of Dew , Blue , or I'd rather be with you . Or even , every single Picasso Moon .

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: groovernut Date: Aug 17, 2010 6:48pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

Yeah but he is a good black sheep, maybe the best?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Aug 17, 2010 8:48am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

Yeah, I've noticed the gender gap as regards Bob Weir LOL. Though it's hard to be sure around here since it's mostly guys anyway.
The dynamics of it are certainly interesting (both in the band, and the fans).
I think "black sheep" sums it up. He does act decidedly odd at times (well, the El Paso debacle a couple of weeks ago makes a perfect example), and he has outbursts. He also gets scapegoated IMO. Every family's got a black sheep ...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Aug 17, 2010 9:29am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

That would be most of us , I would think . I know I am .
Maybe it's black sheep envy , :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Aug 17, 2010 12:06pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

I think, like Micah (if I read him right), I'd rather be Bob than Jerry. But really I'd much rather be Phil than either of them.

:-)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Aug 17, 2010 12:11pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

Agreed, I can certainly get behind that.

Much as you certainly would be able to get behind all the black sheep being talked about.

Seriously though, Phil seems to enjoy a great deal of the pluses associated with band membership with little of the negatives.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Aug 17, 2010 12:14pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby


"Phil seems to enjoy a great deal of the pluses associated with band membership with little of the negatives."

Unless you count, like, losing a liver.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Aug 17, 2010 7:10pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

I'd take the Billy role (if we get to play this game). Understated and there for the whole damn ride and now living in Hawaii while making new music with new characters - including one of my faves of all time, George Porter, Jr.

And no one ever complains about Billy - if anything, they just tend to underestimate him. Also, he was probably able to get through, and still is, a lot of public spaces w/o anyone hassling him.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Aug 17, 2010 7:16pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

" ... they just tend to underestimate him ."
Yes , many do .
Still .

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Dudley Dead Date: Aug 17, 2010 8:19am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

As has been said, Bob had more to do with that period , than in earlier ones . In it's way , it was certainly a high point . Sometimes artists have very different points of view than ours regarding their work . Jerry didn't much care for the early songs , and thought "Cats Under the Stars", was the best ting he did .
I would not worry about Futhur , Phil loves the 60's stuff, and the 73-74 jam stuff . And to me , Bob seems to be a little more into that role these days , than the "happy cheese man", rock star , of the 80's , 90's period .

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Aug 17, 2010 9:52am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

Gotta say I really can't stand that "cats" song. What was he thinking?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snori Date: Aug 17, 2010 11:32am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

I like 'Cats', the nightlife feel of it is good. It's the middle 8 'Blouse unbuttoning - doing it for you' that brings it up short. Clunk, clunk.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: drspark61 Date: Aug 17, 2010 9:04am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

It *was* the peak for the band that was the Grateful Dead from roughly 1980 onward -- that is a jammy rock band with programmed, compartmentalized opportunities for free-form improvisation. They were consistently tight and made the most of their strengths at the time.

On the other hand, the peak for that other Grateful Dead was '73-'73, imo.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: drspark61 Date: Aug 17, 2010 9:14am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

'72-'73

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Aug 17, 2010 7:47am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

There was a magic year let's say from 9 - 29 - 89 > 9 - 20 - 90 .
The few shows included after Brent's passing are unique . I would like to know what the hardcore , nothing after '77ish folks , think about the whole of 9 - 19 -90 ? ( etree if you do not have it ) No Brent , nothing w/ VW in concrete .
The boys were a band during that year , all 6 of them . The cut may have been unequal off the stage , but they were all money on stage . Here are a few highlights,

http://www.archive.org/details/gd1989-10-09.sbd.miller.80840.sbeok.flac16

http://www.archive.org/details/gd1989-10-20.sbd.walker-scotton.miller.83317.sbeok.flac16

http://www.archive.org/details/gd1990-03-24.sbd.miller.107873.flac16

http://www.archive.org/details/gd90-03-29.sbd.miller.26341.sbeok.shnf

http://www.archive.org/details/gd90-07-12.sbd.unknown.17688.sbeok.shnf

http://www.archive.org/details/gd1990-07-21.sbd.walker-scotton.miller.95809.sbeok.flac16

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: deadpolitics Date: Aug 17, 2010 10:09pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

Sampled 10-20-89 and the Hey Pocky Way was most excellent. Phil is extremely active and gives the song a super psychedelic funk.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Longnstrange Date: Aug 17, 2010 10:48am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

As I have said, they got better until Brent died. Then it was over.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Cliff Hucker Date: Aug 17, 2010 12:16pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

Guess we know when you got on the bus, LOL!

Your posts never fail to entertain...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: smokinchains Date: Aug 17, 2010 1:08pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

You gotta look at it from Bob's perspective. It's not "he's a jerk, go listen to '73". Think about it. JG was almost dead in '86. They come back in '87 and hit the big time with Touch, although maybe musically they weren't quite there yet. In '89-90 Bob feels that they found their stride after the coma, were more successful commercially than they ever were before, living more comfortably but still doing things their way.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: grendelschoice Date: Aug 17, 2010 1:50pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

"Peak" is kind of misleading as a term.

Every Deadhead has his/her feeling on when the band hit its high point and then dropped off. For some, it's not a day past 1969, and for others (like me) the ultimate high point year is 1977, and no one's ever going to convince me otherwise.

But if you're looking for "proof" that Weir et al. were indeed doing some VERY good things in 1989-'90, I'd say start with the 3-night run at Alpine Valley, WI. July 17-19th, and end up at the Branford shows at Nassau in 1990.

Hard to argue those weren't outstanding examples of very prime Dead.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Aug 17, 2010 1:58pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

Agree that folks around here are pretty much set on their opinions on the band's "peaks" and nothing will shake them. I just wish folks would stop inferring those who don't share their opinion are somehow mentally lacking. Hell, if it's a "peak" to you, than a "peak" it is.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: grendelschoice Date: Aug 17, 2010 2:01pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

couldn't agree more, sir. (Nice to hear from you again, btw...I've been MIA from the board for a while...no real reason....just haven;t felt much like commenting...) but I do think it's crazy to suggest a person is "wrong" about something as subjective as a particualr Dead year or era....part of what makes the band so interesting is that they sound quite different at different times...songs they did in the Keith era (you make like his acoustic sound better than Brent's Hammond B3) sound very different in the Brent era, etc.

The only thing i think we CAN say for sure is that 1995 sucked serious ass ;-)

(Oh, and 1977 is still the best! ;-)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Aug 17, 2010 2:06pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

If only Jerry had actually had enough energy to suck ass.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Aug 17, 2010 11:59am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

Bollocks.

Creatively they were pretty much a busted flush from about 76 on. If you can see an upward arc through the 80s good luck to you - pass those rose-tinted glasses when you're done with them.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Aug 17, 2010 12:25pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

You can always borrow mine.

When you say "arc", if you are meaning a prolonged period of artistic improvment, I'd agree that train had run out of steam. Now I would argue that they were still able to show some spurts of high energy and fantastic artistic output throughout the "later" years, although those spurts became fewer and farther between as the years went on (OK, save the Viagra puns for another time).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: high flow Date: Aug 17, 2010 12:31pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

....and the crusty curmudgeons chime-in like a rusty bell.

1977 was pretty good, by most accounts. 1980 has the acoustic sets from Radio City and the Warfield. 1989 was Loma Prieta earthquake and the boys rallied for the Bay Area. 1990 they played legendary sets with Branford Marsalis. 1991 they eulogized Uncle Bobo on Halloween with a torrential Dark Star.

Perhaps not peaks, these moments were certainly above the timberline.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Aug 17, 2010 1:07pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

At least us crusty curmudgeons have a sense of history.

A few anomalous high points don't buck a trend.

I'll keep ringing my rusty bell.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: RBNW....new and improved! Date: Aug 17, 2010 11:51am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby

BINGO

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Aug 17, 2010 7:49pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby and perhaps Phil in not so many words

Read Phils book? All about the summer of love, he's drunk then jumos to the years mentioned here. Look at a bunch of stuff they chose to release - lots of focus on Brent. Aint saying that was their peak by any stretch, as I've said many times 72-74 is their musical peak imo. Early incredible explosion years followed by their 70's songwriting peak then their musical peak. After 77 I dont think they ever hit that high again BUT there were lots of great magic later just not as many peaks. But I do think 89-90 were the last very strong years for the and and I think they ALL think that too not just Bob.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Aug 17, 2010 9:53pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead peak in 89-90...as per Bobby and perhaps Phil in not so many words

I'm not sure "peak" is the right word, though there may not be a better one. I don't really like the notion of rise and decline; I think it's too clear-cut and simplified. If you look at the careers of most artists, there's an intensity and vitality to their younger work that generally isn't matched later on, but if they're any good, they don't exactly "decline" per se. They develop a kind of maturity that is more restrained, often more polished, and often very impressive and satisfying -- but not as explosive or innovative. Frequently it's exciting only in spurts, or seems "mailed in."

Painters work solo, so it's easy to see that change. Musicians like the GD work in a group, impacting each other and often on different personal trajectories (tired periods, drug-addled or drunk periods, enthused periods, recovering periods, etc). What's more, a single band almost never lasts the way the Dead did. They break up, pursue solo careers in mix-and-match ways with other artists, they overdose and die. So it's easy, I think, to dismiss the changes in the Dead (or theoretically any other band that lasts) as a "decline from a peak," when it's really more complicated than that.

Somehow the Dead, it seems, did manage to synch up with each other in a joint "good period" around 89-90. Maybe someone could argue it was the peak of their Mature Period or something ... Bob and Phil do seem to think something of the sort, and yeah, it's reflected in the releases, too. I doubt many people would seriously argue that the band was somehow more exciting or "better" in the late 80s than the early 70s, but to me, it makes more sense to think of multiple peaks of different kinds -- peaks within a mountain range, maybe? -- and a career trajectory that combines maturing and changing with personal and creative peaks and valleys, all of it playing out in a complicated way with group dynamics.

So that's my wordy 2, or 20, cents ...




This post was modified by AltheaRose on 2010-08-18 04:53:38

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)